I'm asking you the basis of your justification, not mine.
What do you mean by "improvement of the life on this planet".
If this is your issue with my model, I already posted my reasoning.
I consider the inherent laziness of man to be problematic to human development and I created a model which resolved that difficulty.
I'm sorry to say this, but your frustration means very little in clarifying the confusion.
Nor does the phrase I do not care proves anything but to say "anything goes" which makes it even more confusing.
I apologize for getting frustrated, Kaze. It's never good debate form for me to get as patronizing and agitated as I was.
It's just that people are telling me that I am using the word "Utopia" incorrectly when I took a class on Utopian movements literally
last semester.
But I DO KNOW for sure that Utopian Socialism (not sure what Industrial Social Utopian means here, but probably a reference to Proudhon and Anarcho-Syndicalism) did not resides in"generally created in order to address a particular problem" but instead a complete model. I challenge you to prove me wrong here.
That is what i meant by "Addressing a particular problem". Of course, I don't mean to say that there weren't Utopian communities that focused on multiple problems.
My point basically was "We're not reinventing the wheel here." What I'd hoped to see was. . . Adopt a contemporary model, find a problem with that model, and propose an alternative which addresses said problem.
The rest, I left up to the debtors. Kaze, you supplied a model for change (albeit vague). Lex hit the nail much more squarely on the head. He proposed reforms in Law, criminal justice, political organization, etc which addressed problems that Lex saw with contemporary society.
Amazingly enough, it is precisely because the system is perceived as too idealistic, as such that Marx and Engels labelled them "utopian" because there are no perceivable ways for such society to be created or sustained.
Marx and Engles, both well educated individuals, were probably referencing Utopia's Greek definition in a derisive sense.
But confusion aside, my insistence on certain criterion is important in order for this discussion/debate to be meaningful.
Otherwise we will just parading our model without any clear reason why it is rejected or defended.
Thus, an agreement on what should be the fundamental criteria for a desired model must be discussed and agreed upon first.
Saying I don't care simply imply that Jim Jones' cult can also be considered as legitimate model if one's criteria is homogeneity.
Okay, I get what you're saying here.
You and I have different styles when it comes to this. I value a far more "free-form" system where people are free to propose any nonsense they feel appropriate. I think there are some flaws with society, so does Lex. We both propose solutions to those flaws, criticize each other's solutions, praise that which we see as effective, combine the models, pat ourselves on the back, and we're done.
Sure, guys can propose a harem-based system, but they'll get ignored simply because lack of harems isn't an actual societal problem.